THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Once again, a Friday night  dinner party at a synagogue had to be tarnished by left wing activism.

This time, it was Stephen S. (not so) Wise that is in desperate need of having its tax exempt status revoked.

Somewhere along the line, Jews have to be broken from the stranglehold that liberalism has over them. There is nothing…repeat nothing…let me again say nothing…that requires Jews to be liberal.

There is nothing in the Torah (Old Testament) that forces one to be a democrat.

The concept of social justice is not found anywhere in any Hebrew book written by anybody with any credibility. In fact, social justice was the name of a 1940s magazine that was antisemitic in nature. This would make sense, given that liberals Jews respond to those who kick them in the teeth by thanking them, and asking for more. This explains the Eliot Spitzer scandal. Liberal Jews are masochists.

I entered the Synagogue hoping to hear about Judaism. After all, a Jewish person in the Synagogue should expect to hear about Judaism. As political as I am, after a long hard week, a Friday night service is a way to unwind and get away from the stresses of life, which include the stock market, war, and yes, politics in general.

Some would ask me if I would feel the same way if the message was republican. I respond to them that if that were to ever happen, I could let them know. My integrity runs deep, so I would assume it would still be inappropriate.

The speech at Stephen S. Witless was about vegetarianism. Yes, apparently according to some liberal fellow that was either a Rabbi or just a guy speaking, Jews should become vegetarians. He also wanted to make it clear that he was not a vegetarian himself, which fit perfectly into the “do as I say, not as I do” stereotype of liberals that is one part hypocrisy, one part self righteousness, and several helpings of smugness.

Apparently, hunting is wrong. So is eating most animals. True, the guy did not start chanting “meat is murder.” Maybe that was after I left the room in disgust. Before that occurred, the lowlight of his speech was about how wrong it was to eat veal.

Folks, the only reason some people have a problem with veal is because they are baby cows, and baby animals are adorable. There is nothing in any theology that forces cute animals from being given special treatment that average looking animals can only dream about. This is not junior high school. There is a place for ugly animals.

Some would say that I should have known better than to have gone to a liberal synagogue. No, no, no, no, no. This is backward thinking. I was there for a dinner party and a Jewish experience. I was not there for a political rally. I suspect that the only reason this synagogue did not violate the sabbath by passing around a collection plate was because the Rabbis could not decide whether to ram their heads up the hides of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

The only connection between Judaism and food is the issue of which animals are kosher to eat. Cows are kosher. Beef is legal to eat according to all Jewish doctrines, provided that the animal is slaughtered to avoid unnecessary pain. Killing an animal humanely is noble. To imply that Judaism should encourage giving up eating animals is to confuse Judaism with liberal activism.

One reason I keep saying that liberal Jews need cranial-glutial extraction surgery is because they cannot seem to figure out what truly matters. Islamofacists are trying to kill every Jew on Earth. They are trying to do what Hitler failed to do over 60 years ago. For those liberal Jews who don’t get it, when I say Hitler, I mean a German genocidal lunatic, not our current Pro-Israel republican President. Only liberal Jews could have trouble making the distinction, hence my clarification.

Yet instead of talking about this, liberal Jews take synagogues hostage so they can talk about what they consider a real threat…veal.

Folks, veal is not a threat to anyone but the cows. If a person wants to give up meat, fine. Just don’t spend close to an hour telling me why we should, especially when you don’t!

For those who claim that meat is bad for the environment because of cows and methane gas, try fighting through the noxious stench of a liberal Rabbi gasbag trying to indoctrinate young minds with everything but actual real Judaism.

I want to relax in temple. It is tough to relax when I am rabid with rage, and fighting the urge to tell a Rabbi “Shut up. Just shut the (redacted) up. Take your liberal activism and just shut up. I am here to learn about my religion, and if you are not going to educate me specifically about my religion, then for the love of the Hebrew God I worship, shut up.”

I am sure that the people running this sinkhole of a place of worship will offer some pablum about how we should hear other perspectives. They might even babble about how they have actually allowed a conservative speaker at some point, such as Dennis Prager. Actually, he was just there to do a Torah study.

Some will argue that places of worship have always been political. That does not make this occurrence acceptable.

I left the dinner party early when that unctious Rabbi (or whatever he was) came to the table I was at and made a joke about whether or not we were enjoying the veal. He then chortled at his own wit, because somebody had to do so. Yes, smug people laughing about how smug they are is just delightful.

I ignored him, since trying to educate a man at that age is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig.

I then announced to my friends at the table that I liked my veal the way I liked my cappucinos…that there was nothing tastier than a double half calf.

Of course I am not that heartless. After all, I hate coffee.

True, this Rabbi was less harmful than the head of Reform Judaism, who seems to think that opposition to the War in Iraq has anything at all to do with any Jewish text written anywhere. Also, his lack of a good speaking voice prevented too many people from being hypnotized, unless boredom hypnotizes. I guess it can.

Politics in temples is a cancer, and until enough of these institutions get their tax exempt status revoked,  there is no other form of radiation treatment.

Some liberal Rabbis will complain that such threats are an attempt to silence them, which would threaten their freedom of speech. Good. A little fear would be healthy for them. The argument that I could just walk out as I did is not valid. I have to worship somewhere, and my consenting to attend a dinner party with friends my age does not in any way imply that I am consenting to have an appendage of the Democratic National Committee talk down to me.

I do not expect Stephen S. Wise learn from this experience. They are liberal, and asking liberal Rabbis to learn class and tact is like asking Mahmoud Armageddonijad to learn and embrace Hebrew. At some point people are indoctrinated too deeply to change. Besides, in some ways the liberal Rabbis are worse, because unlike Armageddonijad, they actually believe what they are saying.

Temples are bully pulpits. They should not be occupied by bullies.

The Jewish holiday of Passover is approaching, and it tells the story of four sons. One of the sons is wise, and one is wicked.

Perhaps Stephen S. Wise should change its name to Stephen S. Wicked until it bothers to alter its sermons to include republican Jews. After all, we are human beings, contrary to what some liberal Rabbis believe.

Hineni. Here I am. I am a proud Jewish republican, and I will not rest until synagogues are cleansed and scrubbed of every ounce of liberalism so that I may worship in peace.

eric

Saturday night begins the Jewish Holiday of Passover. My frenetic pace will take me to Chicago for a few days with the Chicago Cannonball, a quick pitstop in Atlanta, and several days in New York, where I will get to spend time with my grandmother in Brooklyn. Fun and adventure awaits me, even though I cannot go to the original Nathans Hot Dog stand due to the holiday. Nevertheless, I have it easy compared to may others. It is in this spirit that I bring an issue that is near and dear to a couple of people I know. 

It has been my pleasure over the last few months to get to know Lisa and Bob Cohen. They are helping to prevent Northern California from descending into further Chaos. Like myself, they are proud Jewish republicans. Yes, these people exist, even in the Bay Area. I have gotten to know them through the Republican Jewish Coalition, and given how gracious they have been to me, I wanted to take a day discussing an issue that is near and dear to them. That issue is the Israeli area of Sderot.

The column below is not my own. It is straight out of the Jerusalem Post.

Israel‘s War Against Islamic Extremism Is the World’s War

 

 

 

REMEMBER AND WRITE/CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON TO ASK WHAT ARE THEY DOING ABOUT

AND ALL ISRAEL’S AND THE U.S. MISSING SOLDIERS

NOAM BEDEIN, DIRECTOR

REGIONAL NEWS SERVICE FOR SDEROT AND THE WESTERN NEGEV

A PROJECT OF THE SDEROT MEDIA CENTER AND THE SDEROT INFORMATION CENTER FOR THE WESTERN NEGEV LTD

POB 472

1 Histadrut Street

Sderot 80174 Israel

www.Sderot-media.com

tel. 077 300 2576

 

Visiting Campuses Abroad:

 

When you do not know what is happening in Sderot …even terrorism can seem justified

 

Recently, I spent three weeks traveling in the US, Canada and the UK, making presentations on University campuses, portraying what it was like living in Sderot under constant missile attack from Gaza over the past 18 months.

Throughout the trip, I received daily reports on my laptop about the continuing barrage of missiles fired at my hometown, Sderot

During that 3-week stay abroad, almost 500 missiles hit Sderot, Ashkelon as well as twenty farming communities in the Western Negev region of Israel.

Indeed, the western Negev remains the only region in the entire western world where missiles are fired at a civilian population with intent to kill, maim and traumatize as many civilians as possible.

With such a barrage, you would expect to hear and read about it all over the press.

Instead, newspaper headlines from the Middle East that greeted my student audience every day, from Wellesley to Halifax to London, were…

“ 120 Palestinian were killed over the past two weeks, following a disproportionate response from the Israeli army – following rockets launched towards Israel, with no severe injuries or damages”-

“The Humanitarian crisis is Gaza the worst since 1967”

“Tens of children were killed in the Gaza Strip in these past few days.”

All this brings to mind the media rule of thumb that: “ONLY WHEN IT BLEEDS IT LEADS”, which means that if people are not killed on Israel’s side, there is no news story on Israel’s side..

Meanwhile, no mention was made in any media outlet about the fact that 97% of the missiles that are produced and fired from Gaza are deliberately positioned among the civilian population in Gaza.

In other words, if Israel wants to protect its own citizens by targeting the missile launchers and missile factories, the Israeli army is left with no choice but to inadvertently kill Gaza civilians in order to achieve that purpose.

That unfortunately will happen when missiles are deliberately and strategically placed among civilian population so as to maximize the amount of casualties on the Palestinian side, thus creating an international outcry for Israel to cease fire against Gaza targets, while making Israel look like the bad guy.

International Human Rights statutes state flat out that when a terrorist uses a human shield that is a war crime.

Funny how so many human rights groups and mainstream reporters forget that little detail.

That little detail also eludes the average media consumer.

Once you see dead children from Gaza on the front page of the New York Times- You stop thinking.

You just get mad at the so called “child killers”.

After all, the western mind cannot imagine that any sane person could possibly put a child, a woman or an elderly person in from of him, just to get him killed, but that is exactly what the Palestinian missile launchers in Gaza do every day – sometimes 50-100 times in one day.

We live in a new era, when the only window outside of the personal bubble we all live in, is what we see on the television, read in the newspapers and peruse the internet and it is all cunningly packaged and marketed for the consumer to see only what its producers intend you to see.

The TV image of crowded refugee camps in Gaza, and the sound byte that “this is the worse humanitarian crisis since 1967” plays well.

How many know of the billions of dollars and Euro of Western aid that was squandered in Gaza?

Or the five to ten billion dollars in Arafat’s personal account?

Yet the disproportional media coverage speaks for itself:

“Israel cuts off Gaza’s electricity by 1%-5%”.

Following Hamas’s candle march with their children – with photographs and newsreels of the event which showed clearly that the stores were lit up as were the streets – the Hamas ruled city of Gaza achieved what they set out to do – generated an outraged world opinion which forced Israel to immediately cease the sanctions against them and restore their electricity.

All this goes on while Gaza missiles are fired in the direction of the power plants in Ashkelon, which provides Gaza with 70% of their electricity.

How many people stop to ask why Israel, which “disengaged” itself from the Gaza Strip while uprooting 10,000 of its Israeli civilians and destroying their communities, towns and farms, still had to supply electricity to an entity ruled by a Hamas terrorist organization whose sole purpose is to liquidate the State of Israel?.

This trip was a learning experience, to witness first hand the outcome of what people think when they are constantly fed one side of the story for so many years.

What we hear, what we see, what we read- is what we know… Or what we think we know…

Meeting Jewish activists who are impressed with what they think is the “suffering of Gaza” wearing shirts that proclaim ”Israel Apartheid” .

Reading a chart prepared by Jewish students about how many children have been killed in Gaza, and how many were killed in the “West Bank” according to “objective” UN reports

Watching Jewish students support a photo exhibit on “Breaking the silence”-, as if Israeli soldiers serve in an “occupation” army and commit crimes against humanity.

Experiencing Jewish students attack me only because I’m from Israel, believing Israel doesn’t have the right to exist if it behaves the way it is portrayed by the press.

The meaning of the Simon Wiesethntal Center study became clear, which showed that 40% of Jews under of the age of 35 do not understand why there needs to be an Israel.

In the words of one Jewish campus coordinator, “Often on campuses, hatred against Jews is masked in the politically correct veil of anti-Zionism.” People use the word Zionist or Zionism as a codeword to express anti Jewish sentiment. Asking a professor about the appropriateness of speaking with a group that had members chanting “slaughter the Jews” after a campus rally, he pursued me yelling “Zionist, Zionist, Zionist” in a threatening manner. He knew absolutely nothing about my political beliefs.

There is a lot of controversy around Israeli issues. People like to assume the truth of any conflict lies somewhere in the middle. It is hard for them to understand how one side can be committed to the destruction of the other or that one side does not desire our definition of peace. So rather than learn, they settle with ignorance, and refuse to support Israel.

Natan Scharansky’s observations are also appropriate, “The most sophisticated form of demonization is demonization of the Jewish State. For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz – these comparisons which are heard practically everyday within the “enlightened” quarters of Europe – can only be considered anti Semitic.”.

In that context, the reality of Sderot is deemed too political for most Jewish student groups to touch.

Yet this is the first time in 60 years where much of the State of Israel may now fall under the threat of missile attacks from Lebanon and from Gaza, who are now developing missile capability to reach all the way to Ashdod, which will place over half a million Israelis in range of their rockets.

Indeed, a missile fell in Kiryat Gat on the 30^th of March.

No family in Israel should suffer the indignity of sleeping in their living room in fear – for the past few years, with parents and children huddling for fear on the lower floors of their homes, so that they can be ready to run for shelter at a moment’s notice.

Imagine a reality where you cannot sleep in an upstairs bedroom because you won’t have enough time in the 15 seconds between the siren and the explosion of a missile to run for cover in a safe room, if the family has safe room .

Without tens of dead bodies, what can we best illustrate the suffering of Sderot?

How about hundreds of nursrey school children in Sderot who now live on tranquilizers?.

What kind of life do they have?

Ziva Dahan, a Sderot resident and mother of four – describes the trauma of her children:

“We don’t get it yet… but don’t worry, our chidren growing up with this kind of reality – they get it.
And Our children’s children who are going to get it hard…”

Let’s face it.

There is no excuse for firing missiles into civilian population, for the express purpose of killing l and traumatizing as many people as possible.

When the IDF kills a civilian, they are sorry about their missed their military target.

When Arabs fire a missile and misses killing a civilian, they are sorry they missed their civilian target..

Children in Sderot are trained to run to a bomb shelter in 15 seconds, while children in Gaza are trained to run on top of the roof top and become a human shield, because it ‘looks good’ in the eye of the camera.’

This is the definition of pure terrorism.

That is because each and every one of these missiles can actually kill.

The damage of any missile can damage anything within the radius of 100 meters -80 feet

With 8554 missiles fired in seven years and few physical casualties, almost every family can tell their story of how a missile fell right near them, causing terrible property damage, yet leaving them alive to tell the horrific tale of a missile that fell close by.

Showing the human face of the families in Sderot, through the media- that is our only window.

This is the only way out of our own personal bubble.

This is what we can do to give hope to this town and to the Western Negev and to the people of Israel..

As Rabbi Abe Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center recently observed, “ Sderot is now on the front line of the Jewish people.

The reality of Sderot continues, like nowhere else in the world.

Have we forgotten our rights to live in dignity, as Jews and as Israelis, in our own land?.

Indeed, the survival of Sderot will depend on the backing that it will receive from the people of Israel.

 

Anything I could add to this story would not so it proper justice, so today I am content to just provide the bookends. May God Bless the good people of Sderot. They are simply Jewish people fighting for their survival. I pray they succeed in this fight, and that their Passover is as peacable as can be given the situation.

The flaming feminist liar vs the cold post racialist gasbag…forget the pre mordem. Live from the Jimmy Kimmel Theatre, here is the Pennsylvania Polka democratic debate recap. Keep in mind that when MSNBC cannot be happy with liberals, then there is nothing positive to say.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/16/905215.aspx

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/17/nutroots-ballistic-we-demand-a-stultifyingly-dull-debate-or-else/

Oh, and the John McCain appearance on Softball with Chris Matthews was a complete waste.

Ok, now the recap. To quote former boxing referee Judge Mills Lane…”Let’s get it on!”

Speaking of complete wastes, Barack Obama’s opening statement was exactly that. Hillary Clinton’s was not much better. Maybe the candidates are useless, but it could just be that opening statements themselves are pointless. ABC then went to a commercial after the opening statements, possibly sending a signal that a couple well placed product placements would keep people awake.

Moderator Charles Gibson asked a question brought up by Mario Cuomo, who was famous for being overrated to begin with. He wants the winning candidate of the primary to promise to take the runner up as their Vice Presidential running mate. This is idiotic on its face, since the candidates should be free to choose whoever they like.

Obama refused to take the pledge. Hillary promised to close ranks behind the nominee, but would not take the pledge. Both candidates bashed President Bush.

Obama was asked about his snobbery regarding the bitter people who believe in God and own guns because the constitution allows this.

Obama did say that he mangled what he was trying to say. He also stated that it was not the first or last time. He then explained that he was referring to economic anxiety, and that when wedge issues get exploited, economic issues get ignored.

Hillary announced that she was the granddaughter of a factory worker from Scranton. Perhaps she channeled the body of John Edwards before the debate. She also spoke about her Methodist faith. She very calmly played the “offended” card, taking umbrage at Obama’s remarks. She then spoke of listening and respecting one another after bashing President Bush again.

George Stephanopolis asked Hillary if she felt Obama could beat McCain. She stated that it was imperative that McCain be defeated. She then made it clear that McCain had the wrong idea, and how she knows what the republican party “dishes out” because she has been on the receiving end of 16 years. Stephanopolis pressed her to actually answer the questions, and she said, “Yes. Yes. Yes.” She then emphasized why she was better and stronger.

The same question was asked of Obama, and he made it clear Hillary can win, but he thought he was better. He then addressed the elitist issue. He said he could not be elitist towards religious people because he was one. He could not be elitist towards gun owners because some of his constituents are gun owners. This is nonsense, but he may have believed what he said. He then very smartly brought up Hillary’s 1992 “baking cookies” remark, saying that she was not elitist. This was a brilliant move, because he delivered the attack, said it should not make her look bad, but it does. He said she learned the wrong lesson from that.

Hillary got defensive and stated that it was not just she who was offended by his remarks, but voters. She then stated the election should be about what they have done with their lives politically. Then she held up two blank pieces of paper, one for her and one for him. Just kidding. She spoke of her 35 years before i fought the urge to slip into a coma. That could have been the after dinner sugar snack.

Obama was asked why he rescinded his invitation to Pastor Jeremiah Wright to attend the inauguration. Obama ducked the question, instead stating that Pastor Wright has done good things and bad things. This issue simply vexes him, and he has yet to figure out how to address it.

Hillary was asked about the idea that Pastor Wright has his positives. Hillary very smartly brought up Pastor Wright’s anti-American sermon shortly after 9/11. 9/11 still evokes anger in pennsylvania. Hillary then got off a great line about how “You get to choose your pastor. You cannot choose your family, but you can choose your Pastor.”

Obama kept insisting that he did not hear the remarks, although Charlie Gibson was not buying it. Obama then tried to insist that Hillary’s Pastor defended Wright, which is the “everybody does it” tactic.

Stephonopolis asked if he thought Wright loved America as much as Obama did, and what will happen after the Wright videos are played endlessly if he wins. Obama smartly answered that he had enough faith in the American people to see through that. When asked if Wright was patriotic, Obama stated that “He was a former marine. He loves his country, but he is angry.”

Hillary naturally felt the issue deserved further exploration. She then spoke about bringing people together and overcoming anger and bitterness. She deliberately used the word bitternessm abd could barely contain her smile as she stuck in the dagger. She brought up Farrakhan, Hamas, and said these issues “raise questions.”

Stephonopolis then shifted gears and brought up a Pennsylvania poll that showed only 39% of voters found her honest and trustworthy. Hillary then said, “I may be a lot of things, but I’m not dumb.” She said she is embarrassed by the incident, has apologized for it, and it was a mistake. She then shifted to how proud she was to have gone to Bosnia, and that General Wesley Clark, who was in the audience, supports her. She then spoke about her experience going to 80 countries. She said she will try to get more sleep in the future.

Obama was asked if Hillary has been truthful about her past. Obama said she had a strong record to run on, and that he has not commented about her Bosnia remarks. Stephonopolis pointed out that his campaign has, which apparently is the same thing to everyone except him. Obama then brought the focus back to issues.

Obama was asked if he believed in the American flag since he does not wear one. Obama stated that he “reveres the American flag.” He then made it clear that he loves this country for all it has given him, and that his life embodies the American dream.

Both candidates looked like deer in the headlights, although Obama handled this question very well.

Stephonopolis then asked Obama about his friendship with bomber William Ayers. A visibly irritated Obama then stated that he barely knew the guy, and this guilt by association was politics at its worst. He pointed out that he was 8 years old when those bombs went off. He then tried to state that he was friends with Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who has made incendiary remarks regarding abortion. Mr. Coburn was not there to defend himself against charges by his “friend.”

Hillary went on the attack, lashing Obama for associating with somebody who made “deeply hurtful” comments to the people of New York, who she claims to care about. She then made it clear that since the republicans will bring it up, it should be brought up now. She then made a remark that showed how disgusting she is.

“The republicans should apologize for the Bush-Cheney years and refuse to run a candidate.”

At that point Obama took the gloves off. He brought up the pardons that the Clintons gave the Puerto Rican terrorists from FALN, which was more serious than his thin association with Ayers. He then stated that Hillary keeps saying she can take a punch, as she has proved against republicans, but he can take a punch because he has taken many from her.

In a surprising move, Hillary decided not to rebut the charge. She was given the option, and she said she would wait. Perhaps she felt she was winning, and did not want to say too much.

ABC then used a biracial couple as a prop, having a question about Iraq asked by a black woman with her arm around her white male partner. The question itself was whether or not troops would be coming home in 60 days after the election regardless of the realities on the ground.

Hillary apparently does not believe in reality, since predetermined withdrawal is fine by her. When asked if she knew better than General David Petraeus, she said no, that nobody had all the answers. Yet she wants to remove all the troops. She claims that Afghanistan has been neglected, which apparently is news to our soldiers fighting there.

Obama stated that he also would leave no matter what. He then made a bold but odd statement that “The President sets the mission.” He felt that President Bush was too deferential to General Petraeus. Obama then stated that he would always listen to military generals regarding tactics, but that he would set the mission. This is hubris at its most Obamaest. His nose might have been in the air when he said it, but his ears tend to distract from that on television.

Obama was asked if an Iranian attack against Israel would be considered an attack on America. Obama replied that he would do whatever it takes to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but that he would sit down and talk to Iran. He completely ducked the question, only saying that all options were on the table. He was so cold and detached, only saying that an attack by Iran against Israel would be unacceptable. He stammered throughout the entire question.

Hillary stated that any attack against Israel would be met with massive retaliation by the United States. Yet she then stated this was not about Israel, and that all allies of the USA would face this. Again, it was also a cold detached answer, although slightly less icy than Obama’s response. She also uttered nonsense about “skillful diplomacy” with Iran. However, she would not meet with Armageddonijad directly, which was a thinly veiled swipe at Obama’s willingness to do so.

The debate shifted to the economy, and a statement by John McCain that both Hillary and Obama would raise taxes. Stephonopolis asked both candidates if they would pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 per year. Hillary stated that she would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy even if the economy weakened because she did not believe that it would cause harm. She tried to cite the 1990s, forgetting that the Clintons had nothing to do with the economy. It was the internet boom.

She then inadvertantly dropped a bombshell that should be in republican campaign commercials forever. She said that with regards to the Clinton tax hikes, “We used that tool during the 1990s to very good effect, and I think we can do so again.” However, she would not raise taxes on the middle class. In the 1990s the taxes were raised on the middle class. Bill Clinton denied this during the 1992 campaign, but even the Jayson Blair Times called him on it.

Hillary Clinton turned into Walter Mondale on taxes, and this needs to be shouted from rooftops until somebody in the media is forced to listen. This is bigger than John Kerry’s voting for the 87 billion before he voted against it. This vow to raise taxes must be repeated ad nauseum.

Hillary then did something that no democrats has done before. She defined the wealthy. She may be a class warrior, but most class warriors will not give a number. She did. In her world, the middle class are people making less than $250,000 per year. Even if that is combined household income, the statement shows how little she knows. A combined household income of $250,000 is upper middle class, but it is not wealth. She does not get it, and never will.

Obama stated that he will cut taxes for “middle income” families, which to him means those making $75,000 or less. Families that have each earner making $37,500 are not middle income. They are struggling.

What is it that the socialist woman and the arugala loving elitist man do not understand?

People are not angry and bitter now, but they will be if either of these people get power, especially if the issue is Israel or taxes. Palestinians are probably lighting rockets in the air in celebration listening to this drivel. Then again, they do that anyway, but still.

Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%. Charlie Gibson pointed out that when the capital gains rates were lowered, more revenues came in, and that 100 million people own stock.

Obama meandered that he would “look at” the issue of raising it, and that he wants to restore “fairness.” If there was ever a moment to make English the official language, listening to Obama talk about taxes was a justification.

Gibson again brought up that the lowering of the tax raised revenues, and Obama said “that might happen.”

No Barack, it did happen. For the love of all things holy, somebody make him take an economics class.

Hillary babbled more class warfare about how the Bush economy was bad and the Clinton economy was good. Actually, the Bush economy was better.

Hillary then stated that she “did not want to take one more penny of tax money from anybody.”

She should just give more money. She is 109 million dollars richer than a few years ago, she should just give a bunch of it back. No wait, that would allow her to avoid being hypocritical.

She wants us to “invest” in renewable energy. That is not investment. That is an expenditure. Expenditures are not wrong, but to call them investments is brazenly dishonest.

She then praised Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, because he has his machine backing her. She also stated that President Bush perhaps “does not care” about fixing problems, because after all, she knows what is in his heart.

Despite her lengthy answer, it was not an answer. Gibsona sked her again if she would raise the capital gains tax. Bill Clinton lowered it from 28% to 20%, and President George W. Bush lowered it further to 15%.

Hillary then really offered a spliced answer. She would consider raising it, but not above 20%. After all, even though both times the rate was lowered, revenues were raised (Yes, I keep repeating this), it was good when her husband did it, but not when President Bush did it. Had Clinton lowered it one point and Bush done the rest, she would be standing on stage saying that we can raise it from 15% to 27%, but lord knows not 28%.

Either a policy works and makes sense or it does not. Only in Hillaryworld can two politicians make the same policy decision, and have it be good when a democrat does it and bad when a republican does it. This woman gets more obnoxious by the minute.

If I did not need my television so much (especially during football season), I would have shattered it by now.

She then said “I don’t want to raise taxes on anybody.”

Well the don’t Hillary.

She also attacked Obama’s cap proposal. Obama clarified his cap proposal.

To quote the late Lloyd Bridges in the movie, “Airplane,”…”I picked a bad week to stop drinking/smoking/sniffing glue.”

When Obama insisted that his proposal was not a tax, Gibson stated that it absolutely was a tax. Obama protested, and insisted that many Americans were between $97,000 and 200-250,000. Obama insisted that we should be honest in how we present our ideas. I guess he exempted the two liberals running for President.

Hillary then went on a Bush bashing session simply because shrill is as shrill does.

Obama scoffed at the notion of a commission on Social Security as being worthless. Hillary disagreed, citing Ronald Reagan working with Tip O’Neill in 1983. Obama pointed out that the 1983 commission raised the retirement age and payroll taxes, which Hillary claims she will not do. Hillary also claims she will not raise taxes on working families, but she will of course. Hillary then stated that there are more “progressive ways of doing things.” I shudder to think what she meant by that.

Charles Gibson mentioned that April 16th was the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech school shooting, and that we should keep Virginia Tech in mind. It was very classy of him. He then segued into gun control, pointing out that both candidates have long supported curbing gun freedoms, yet now are trying to talk like they care about gun owners. Heck, Hillary blasted a duck as a kid and loved it. Maybe the duck was republican.

The reasons why democrats are starting to embrace God and guns is because they are tired of losing elections. Period. They lost West Virginia twice after 100 years of winning it. It would be nice if they embraced both religious tolerance and tolerance towards gun owners, but they do not mean it. Their records are clear as day. Obama’s comments were condescending, but Hillary feels the same way. She was just lucky enough that Obama made the arrogant statements before she had a chance to do so. Besides, she has 35 years of experience with insincerity and 15 years of triangulating. He is a novice at such repositioning.

Hillary spoke about the 100,000 cops during her husband’s tenure. She promised to reinstate the assault weapons ban.

My jaw dropped because Hillary actually took a stand. She is completely wrong on the issue, but at least now she can admit that she wants to issue a ban that will help criminals who by definition will disobey such laws. That is why they are called criminals. Hillary then stated that she respects the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners. She may claim to respect them, but she does not understand them. The real fun on this issue will be when the Supreme Court rules on gun issues in June.

Obama was asked about the outright gun ban in Washington, D.C. that is being addressed in the Supreme Court, and whether or not that ban was consistent with the Second Amendment. Obama offered up one of his most gutless remarks, by saying that he had not “listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”

He then babbled about how the Second Amendment clearly conveys an individual right, but that a city or state can constrain that right. He compared this to the right to own private property, but governments can enforce zoning ordinances. A much better parallel would be comparing it to the eminent domain rulings, which were enacted by liberals, and hurting Americans of all stripes.

Obama was again pressed by Gibson about his favoring of registration of guns. Obama wanted a “common sense” approach. Thank heavens, that tells me where he stands. Sensible approaches are good, less sensible approaches are bad.

When asked if she supported the D.C. ban, Hillary turned into Strom Thurmond and started advocating states rights, or in this case, the rights of cities. Then she had the gall to claim that the Bush Administration had no position on the issue. President Bush has been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and let the assault weapons ban expire. That stand will not please everybody, but he took a stand. Hillary acts like she despises President Bush, and then she hides behind him when it is convenient, even if her claim is a bald faced lie.

She then stated that Vice President Cheney was against the ban, which is true, which somehow shows confusion in her mind. Stephonopolis again tried to find out where she stood, rather than everybody else.

Hillary could not answer the question, or more importantly, would not. She favors “sensible regulation that is consistent with the right to bear arms.” Somebody should ask her that question again June. When asked again if the D.C. ban was consistent with that right, she stated that a “total ban, with no exceptions, might not be, but the court might not, I don’t know the facts.”

If these two candidates were eaten by wolves, I would at this point become pro-wolves. At least with wolves, there are clear answers. Besides, wolves eat deer, which these candidates, again in the headlights, were for the entire evening.

When asked if she favored licensing and registration of guns, she replied that she favors “what works in New York.” She stated that what works in New York City might not work in Montana. Her newfound conversion to states rights notwithstanding, I was hoping a states rights argument on abortion would be asked of her just to show the contrast.

Stephonopolis had had enough. He pointed out that when she ran for the Senate in New York, she was in favor of licensing and registration of guns. She admitted that she did because in New York, those rules worked. No they did not. I wish Rudy Giuliani had been in the room to look her in the eye as she tried to explain that anything she believed contributed to the drop in crime in the 1990s in New York.

To the relief of both of these candidates, the gun debate finally ended. The candidates probably then became devoutly even more religious before that the next question would be a softball. Unfortunately for them, Larry King and Chris Matthews were not in the room. Nevertheless, an affirmative action question came up. Should affirmative action be changed so that rich blacks are weaned off it and poor whites are given help? Should it be class based, and not race based?

Obama felt wealthy blacks can be given help in some situations, but would not clarify. He tried to clarify, but his answer made no sense. With Obama, everything can be looked at or studied. This is why people like him. It is difficult to offend people when you say nothing.

Hillary said she supported early childhood education and was against high student loan rates. Maybe she is deaf. The question was about affirmative action. She wants health care for everybody. She then offered a new slogan. She wants to “affirmatively invest in young people…” This is in contrast to investing in them negatively. I wish I could latch onto anybody that would affirmatively tell her to sit down and stop talking.

The ban on both of these people speaking could be lifted when they had something valuable to say or never, whichever came first.

The candidates were then asked what they would “do about” gasoline prices. I expected them to blame President Bush, greedy oil companies, and mention that Dick Cheney worked at Halliburton, in addition to blathering about green collar jobs. I did not expect them to mention dealing with Islamofacist governments that want to kill us, rolling back the gasoline tax that liberals passed with force from Bill Clinton,or allowing us to drill in Alaska. I was neutral on whether they would praise ethanol subsidies since they were now past the Iowa Caucus by several months.

Hillary is going to investigate gas prices. She believes there is market manipulation among energy traders, similar to Enron. Ok, so I said Halliburton instead of Enron. When it was pointed out by Charlie Gibson that John McCain supports a moratorium on the gasoline tax, Hillary tried to insist that democrats favored that. No, they do not. They control Congress now. They have not proposed such a measure. She also wants a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies. She should blame foreign governments, not American corporations.

Obama echoed virtually everything Hillary said, and then stated that we should reduce gasoline demand. This man is an absolute scholar. Perhaps he thinks we should increase the supply as well.

John McCain has taken flack for not being an expert on economics, but his opponents claim to know everything that they do not know, and have no idea about things that a child in kindergarten would understand. I call this “selective stupidity.”

The next question for was a good one, because it gave both candidates a chance to either be classy or arrogant. Stephonopolis was asked how he would as President use George W. Bush, since former Presidents have been good ambassadors, with the exception of Jimmy Carter.

Hillary laughed and stated that she “would have to give serious thought to that.” She and her husband have been treated very graciously by President Bush, but that graciousness has not come close to being returned. She praised him for using her husband with Tsunami relief, but that is a pathetic example. She is basically saying, “You are awful at everything, but you realized how great my husband was, which was right.” She stated that she would use all the former Presidents, before babbling about how we all have got to come together as a nation.

I would have preferred that these candidates be forced to try and come up with positive things to say about President Bush. Even if it was something such as saying pleasant things about his wife and daughters, that would be a start. Most likely they could not so it because they simply see him as evil. It is difficult to “come together” when both of these candidates are ripping a man apart, and by extension, the many people who believe in him. Even among those who do not approve of his job performance, many of those people like the man personally. This question was a chance to show some decency, and as expected, Hillary Clinton failed that test. She even stuck the knife in at the end of the answer, when speaking about our current leader, by saying “that would take some careful thought on my part.”

Obama was less vicious than Hillary. His answer was still a dig at the current President, but it was much more subtle. It was actually brilliantly clever. He said that he would be much more likely to seek advice from President George HW Bush, because his foreign policy was wiser than that of his son. Obama could have mentioned Jimmy Carter, who is now toxic to most Americans. Yet by praising an individual republican President, it allowed him to say something complimentary while still contrasting with the current President Bush. It was a back door entry, but it was effective. It is in stark contrast to Hillary, who cannot praise any republican unless they are self loathing.

The last question dealt with the Superdelegates, and how each candidate would make the case at the convention in Denver as to why they should get the nomination. In effect, this really was a way to just have the candidates give closing statements.

Hillary spoke about being a fighter, despite the fact that people are tired of fighting. She bashed Wall Street, and can give the money back to people she thinks deserve it. We will get back to “shared prosperity,” which is code for socialism. We know where she stands. She stands nowhere and everywhere.

Obama spoke about a planet in peril and our economy in shambles. Yes, this is the man who speaks of hope. He will not take money from Pacs or lobbyists. Many people like him, including people that have never liked a politician before.

Charlie Gibson praised the audience for not disrupting the debate with applause. I did not even think about that until the evening ended, but the audience was overwhelmingly polite.

Of course, the only thing worth clapping about was the end of the debate. Gibson and Stephonopolis were solid. In terms of substance, this was a fabulous debate in terms of questions. Gibson did a great job last time as well.

In terms of responses, this was the very worst debate. I came into this debate disagreeing with these candidates. I ended the evening understanding why the democratic party is worthless.

Are these two lightweights the best the demagoguic party can do?

Yes. That is why the party has been irrelevant for almost half a century.

John McCain won this debate by not being either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Hillary and Obama are pathetic. They have showed positive qualities in the past. There was nothing positive to say about them in this debate.

Osama Bin Laden also won this debate by not being mentioned.

I would say that the demagoguic party is a joke, but their stances are not funny.

Democrats are the party of pusillanimousness. They are scared of the voters.

With views like theirs, they should be. Luckily the voters are smarter than these liberal contortionists and their parsings. Al Gore and John Kerry found this out, and the ash heap of historical irrelevance awaits whichever one of these disgraces emerges from the primaries to join them in several months.

This was not a debate. It was a debacle. It was a draw, which in temperature terms would be absolute zero.

An hour of Windex should be enough to scrub my television from this vile event.

eric

At the recent Republican Jewish Coalition conference in San Francisco, I had the pleasure of meeting David Frum. He is a former speech writer for President George W. Bush. His book “The Right Man” is an in depth look at working for a man who had to confront hard times that were unimaginable a year earlier. His current book is a blueprint for governing that will hopefully bring the GOP back into the majority. The book is entitled “Comeback: Conservatism that can win again.”

Mr. Frum is not shy about taking on his own party, pointing out where republicans went astray. I had the pleasure of meeting him at a previous RJC conference in Las Vegas a month earlier, but this time he spent more time getting into the nitty gritty of what is needed to allow republicans to lead once again.

With that, I bring the words of David Frum.

“This election is one of those rare elections where losing the election would be equivalent to losing a war. The elections of 1864 and 1972 had wars on the ballot. With this election, the war is on the ballot.”

“The next President will be in office when baby boomers retire. They will also be in office when many civil servants retire, giving them a chance to streamline the bureaucracy.”

“The invisible question is how changes in Congress could affect the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

“Barack Obama loves to say nothing. He says brilliant things like…

‘Children are our future.’ ‘Tomorrow will be different from today.’ ‘The road ahead is different from the world behind.’

He is an intellect. He is also a vaporous gasbag. He says nothing, yet people hear something. His supporters could be all wrong, but most likely it is his being clever.”

“We need to take a new approach to the economy. The median wage is not you, me and Bill Gates divided by three. The median wage has been stagnant. Wages are increasing, but health costs are increasing more.”

“Democrats are the party of ‘edges.’ They are popular on the edges coastally. They appeal to the poorest and the very wealthiest, with republicans appealing to those inbetween. The democrats appeal to the least educated and those with advanced degrees. Republicans carry many people inbetween.”

“We need to appeal to the great American middle on social issues. We cannot keep offering an unsmiley face towards many. Preaching at people when you cannot make a difference is pointless. If you cannot solve a problem, don’t meddle.”

“Ronald Reagan inspired a generation of young people to become republicans, and they are still republicans today. In the last 12 years, there has been a collapse of support among young people for republicans. This is not just due to the economy and Iraq. Social issues are a big reason. We are losing the next generation.”

“Al Gore has been hungry to ban motor cars his entire adult life. He compares cars to Hiroshima. Yet the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Second Clean Air Act have all been signed into law by republican Presidents. Many people do not know this because those accomplishments are not on Facebook.”

“Since the 1950s, the GOP has been more trusted on ethics and competence. This is not the case now. What little government should so, it must do well. America is now a high quality society. Everything works except government. Government will never work as well as Walmart, but it must work better.”

“My son is a New York Yankees fan. His idea of the best game is one where they take a big early lead and then expand it. Wars are not like that.”

“The RJC has been with us through thick and thin. Today is thin, but it will not always be thin.”

“Speech writers are not very important. The longer a person’s title, the less important they are. ‘President’ is one word. I was the ‘Assistant to the President for economic speech writing.'”

“FDR ran for reelection by saying to voters, ‘Trust me, your boys won’t be in any foreign war.’ When a member of his own cabinet questioned how he could make a statement that he knew would most likely not be true, he replied, ‘Bob, when we are in, it won’t be a foreign war.'”

When asked how and why we lost the culture war, Mr. Frum disagreed with the premise of the question.

“We fought the culture war to a draw. It was not a loss. We want an economic debate. In the 1950s, a liberal magazine had a headline entitled ‘Criminals belong in jail.’ Oh really? We won the crime war argument. Gay rights is not a big deal. America has decided.”

“College degrees among women have reduced divorce by 2/3rds. Without college degrees, the divorce rates among women have remained flat.”

“Do not suffer undue pessimism. 1964 was the last time the GOP lost in a true two way fight. In 1976 there was the shadow of Watergate. In 1992 and 1996 there was Ross Perot. We are used to winning.”

“60% of voters are pro-choice and 40% are pro-life. Yet among the 9% who care about the issue most are 2-1 pro-life. Overturning Roe vs Wade will wake up the othre side. On abortion, tread carefully. Overturning abortion is not banning it. It is letting the states decide.”

“Leftist control over the media and education is not the problem. It is no worse than 10 years ago.”

The audience sharply disagreed with that assessment.

“Voting behavior in the first 5 years of life shapes voting for much of a person’s life. Democrats did well in the first 5 years after World War II, and from 1970-1975.”

“Tip O’Neill used to complain that democrats help the lower class reach the middle class, at which point they then abandon the democrats for the GOP. Yet republicans then help these people reach the upper middle class, at which point they abandon the GOP and go back to the democrats. ”

“Going after John McCain’s age is a mistake. There are more older people now in America, and they don’t like it. McCain looks old due to being tortured and having his bones broken.”

When Bill Maher told David Frum that things do not look good for the GOP, Mr. Frum wryly replied, “You don’t look so good yourself.”

“In 2000, McCain made a mistake by taking the bait in South Carolina. In 2008 he has kept his temper in check. To his credit, in 2008, Barack Obama did not take the racial bait of the Clintons.”

“The Jewish population skews older, with a demographic bias. Young Jews see police offers at Synagogues, which older Jews did not see. Younger Jews are more aware of the dangers.”

“Hillary is the weaker democratic opponent. Obama is cool and calm, sophisticated and savvy. Hillary moderates her image, yet frightens people. Obama is seen as a moderate. Obama simply agrees with everyone.”

“2006 was bad for republicans, but not a rejection of conservatism. It was a partisan shift, but not an ideological shift. People voted for democrats, but did not embrace liberalism.”

David Frum had an inside look at the White House, and his analysis is as detailed as it is useful.

I do not agree with him on every point, but he is worth hearing.

eric

On a day only liberals could love, a victory for conservatives and capitalists has reverberated around the globe.

Another fabulous leader has reclaimed his mantle. Silvio Berlusconi has won a landslide election to become the Prime Minister of Italy for the third time.

Mr. Berlusconi is a staunch ally of America, a friend of President George W. Bush, and an absolute friend of Israel and Jews everywhere. Of equal importance, Mr. Berlusconi is a staunch conservative.

Not since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney led the Anglosphere has conservatism been so powerful.

Make no mistake about it. The “Old Europe” that Donald Rumsfeld poked fun at is dead. Despite the fact that the easiest way to defeat American liberals when they run for President is to refer to them as “French,” the France that San Francisco and Manhattan admires does not exist anymore.

Liberals worldwide are scurrying for cover like little cheese eating rats. They can scream to the heavens that they are correct, but the world is not listening. They protest that they are smarter than everybody else, but the world scoffs. They claim to want to change the world, and then find out they cannot govern.

Yes, liberals will claim many things. What they are not claiming is election victories.

In America, republicans have dominated Presidential elections for the last 40 years. Every once in awhile a Southern democrat will run a football play that Haley Barbour refers to as “fake right, run left.” Nevertheless, a true liberal has not been President since LBJ stepped down. The two democrats that did win fought with their own party, and failed to move America to the left. Despite protests that America is despised in the world, the world seems to want clones of George W. Bush running their own nations.

In Canada, Cretin (Chretien, whatever) is a distant liberal memory. Stephen Harper is in power, and relations between our nations are strong.

In Germany, the failure that was Gerhardt Schroeder has been replaced with Angela Merkel. She is cutting through bureaucracy and statism to modernize the German economy. Make no mistake about it, the word modernize in this case means Americanize.

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy is loving every minute of his role as Sarko the American. This man is George W. Bush relocated, which makes sense since Paris is a city in Texas. He cavorts on the beach with his blazing hot model wife. His enemies criticize him. He doesn’t care. He has the hot wife, which is his way of saying that others can criticize, but he will do as he d@mn well pleases until voters tell him he cannot. He is comfortable in his own skin, and in minutes repaired a relationship that was near fratricide.

In Italy, a billionaire entertainment magnate has retaken the reins. Silvio Berlusconi is still popular, and despite his razor thin loss a couple years ago, two years of leftist governing was enough to have people embrace his return.

The dominoes will continue to fall. Israel is next. Ehud Ohlmert has single digit approval ratings, and Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu is waiting in the wings to make his comeback. His critics on the right correctly point out that he moved left when he became Prime Minister. He has vowed not to make the same mistake twice. His term as finance minister was a rousing success, and his hardline stance on terrorism will be a welcome departure from the current strategy of grovel and surrender.

England and Australia are the exceptions, but make no mistake about it. Tony Blair was left of center, but he was no leftist. He showed economic conservatism by making the Central Bank of England independent. Yes, a world leader gave up some of his own power for the good of his nation and the world. He then maintained a stance on the War on Terror that was every bit as conservative as Lady Thatcher and Mr. John Major. The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown is on the left, but even if he tries to fight the American rightward drift, he will be fighting European trends as well. As for John Howard, it is easy for voters to become complacent and take for granted a man who simply did virtually everything right. His successor has gigantic shoes to fill. Time will tell.

Leftist governments are failing worldwide. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is a dictator and a thug. He seeks comfort in friends such as Iran because his reforms have failed with the civilized world and enraged his people.

Communists governments such as Cuba and China are on the verge of doing their impersonation of J.R. Ewing from Dallas. The Chinese are already enjoying rampant capitalism, running happy and wild the way America did in the 1980s. Cuba is allowing ordinary citizens to have privileges that were unthinkable a year ago.

This is not to imply that liberalism is dead, or that conservatism has won for good. What it does mean is that capitalism is triumphing, and socialism is reeling. Corporations, privatization, and free markets are accomplishing what bloated government bureaucracies cannot get done. Most importantly, nations led by conservatives are willing to confront Islamofacism, since allowing the left to handle the problem would be akin to joining the Caliphate. Anybody who thinks that George W. Bush is a Cowboy has not heard Mr. Sarkozy speak on the issue.

Mr. Bush, Mr. Sarkozy, Ms. Merkel, and Mr. Harper have a window. Mr. Netanyahu will join them soon enough.

Senator John McCain possesses all of President Bush’s positives, with none of his negatives. He will fit in seamlessly with the great leaders of the world.

After all, his competitors consist of a man who thinks Iowa farmers grow arugala, and a woman tho thinks that doing shots and talking about guns in a bar will make her likable. I would say that they look and act French, but that cliche is a French word known as passe. Instead they look like John Kerry, another liberal that confused San Francisco with the rest of a beautiful country that really is the heart and soul of America.

Leftist intellectuals may keep their noses in the air, but those on the right are too busy rolling up their sleeves and governing to notice. The job of world leader is a tenuous one, especially in Italy. Nevertheless, for the first time since 2006, there is cause for much optimism.

Welcome back Mr. Berlusconi. Your friends in America are glad to see you again.

eric

There were two problems with the CNN Compassion Forum.

First of all, short of Campbell Brown frolicking on stage in her underclothing, there really is no reason to watch CNN. They have not had intelligent debate questions since the respected Bernard Shaw retired.

Second of all, even if Campbell Brown were to do her best Eva Longoria imitation, it would pale compared to the real thing. Desperate Housewives was back on television with new episodes. Even Sean Hannity and his Hannity’s America program had to be put on the back burner. Of course, had it been football season, none of the non-Eva stuff would have mattered anyway.

Nevertheless, thanks to tivo, I was able to watch the democrats fake compassion. I tivoed Desperate Housewives since nothing about the compassion forum was expected to be worth keeping.

Also, several commercials during the event were by an organization called “Divided we fail.” It spoke of unifying people to fix problems, and showed an animal that was half elephant, half donkey. It sounded nice, but make no mistake about it. Divided we fail is a project of the AARP, which is a liberal partisan organization that is responsible for screwing up the futures of their own members by being hostile towards a partial privatization of Social Security. Their method of compromise is to threaten republicans and non-liberal democrats, and these threat work. They divide people, and we fail as a result.

As for the event, In all fairness, some of the questions were well thought out, and the answers were sometimes appropriate. The format was also appropriate. Each candidate had about 45 minutes to answer questions, and Hillary and Obama were on the stage separately. There were no buzzers, and expansive answers made both discussions worthwhile. Yet the admission that some of the questions had nothing to do with policy did not make them any less useless.

Hillary was asked about the controversy over Obama’s remarks about those who turn to guns and religion because they are bitter.

Hillary stated that she would let Obama speak for himself, but implied that he was elitist and out of touch. Hillary very wisely pointed out that many Americans felt that about the democratic party as a whole. What she did not say was that this feeling was largely justified. Nevertheless, lip service may or may not be better than overt hostility . Others can decide.

When pressed further, Hillary simply stated that his remarks “raised concerns.” Hillary very wisely remarked that the democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004 were good men, but were perceived as hostile towards voters of faith.

Hillary was then asked a meaningless question about when she felt the trinity in her life. She answered the question in a sincere manner, and my criticism was not with the candidates, but the fact that any of these questions have to be asked. They don’t.

One comment Hillary made was that her faith allowed her to “make decisions when nobody else agreed with me.” That seems to be a quality that she would criticize President Bush for. When she spoke about the positive aspects of politics, and how faith connects to that, was quite eloquent.

Hillary ironically stated that “not every moment of grace is about me.” One perception of her is her narcissism. She repeatedly states that the election is not about her, and the more she says it, the more it rings hollow.

She was then asked about how faith affects ehr ability to make life and death decisions.

This time she was very solid in her answer. She spoke of relying on others. She sounds sincere except when she makes statements such as “I don’t even pretend to know the answers to a lot of questions.” Hillary is known as somebody that is certain of her point of view. On Iraq she said that “there is no easy decision.” This may seem simplistic, but it is truthful. SHe seemed less honest when she said she likes being challenged by people who disagree with her. It would be helpful if she did. Again, this is my perception, but that perception has been through observing her over time. She then stated that she would “hope that she would never become defensive or dismissive with those who disagree with her.” Again, she seemed to be addressing a direct criticism of her.

Her answer to the abortion question of whether life begins at conception was pure Clintonian at its worst. She stated that “the potential for life begins at conception.”

If ever there was a sentence that defined a major criticism of the Clintons, it was “the politics of parsing.” She then spoke that she did not want “an intrusion of government into our society” with regards to abortion. Apparently on health care and virtually every other domestic issue she does not hold such concerns.

She then cleverly shifted to her criticism of China forcing women into having abortions against their will, as if any American politician is in favor of it. Talk about abortion on demand!

The question about euthanasia started out promising when Hillary started talking about the complicated situation of Terry Schaivo. Yet Hillary simply would not take a stand. She meandered about how there were good people on both sides of the issue. She does not want government intruding, but wants us to “create a process” for families to make decisions. There is no need to create a process for families to make decisions. Simply leaving them alone is a better substitute for any government process. I wish Hillary grasped this.

Hillary was then lobbed a softball about how to ease the conern among some that religion has too powerful a role in America. The answer is for those that are bigoted towards religious people to simply stop being bigoted.

Hillary took a more tactful tone, calling for respect and tolerance on all sides.

Rabbi Steve Gutow of the Council for Public Affairs had a chance to aska question of relevance to Jews. Did he ask about Israel or Islamofacism? Of course not, that would make this an honest religious discussion. Instead he made me again be embarrassed by liberal Jews by babbling about Darfur and whether or not President Bush should boycott the opening Olympics ceremonies due to China’s treatment of Tibet.

This Rabbi does not represent me!

Hillary favors President Bush boycotting the opening ceremonies. She is wrong. Several Palestinian homicide bombers tried to kill Jews while this idiotic question was being answered.

Reverends, Priests and Imams stick up for their own interests. It boggles my mind why liberal Rabbis can’t grow a pair and ask questions that benefit us.

A question about how to get low cost drugs for the poor allowed Hillary to brag about voting against CAFTA. Of course, she is completely wrong on this issue. She then offered feint praise about how drug companies save lives, but quickly made sure to state that they must do more. This is based on her 35 years of experience of not working at a drug company.

She was then asked in relation to Darfur why a loving God allows people to suffer.

The stupidity of the question notwithstanding, Hillary handled it perfectly. She was genuinely funny whe she said, “I don’t know, I can’t wait to ask him.” At least she admits God is male!

If Hillary were to handle all questions the way she answered this one, she would be seen as likable, genuine…and human. She nailed this one spectacularly.

As fabulous as she was on that question, she was equally disingenuous on the next question. She was asked about her favorite bible story.

She mentioned the recent Jewish holiday of Purim, which she mispronounced “Pyurim.” She stated that she loved the story of Esther, and read it often as a child. I’m sorry, but growing up Methodist means she most likely went to churches, where they do not teach about Jewish stories such as Esther. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, but outside of Judaism, Esther is obscure. Her comment seemed like a sop to Jewish voters.

She was then asked if we could make changes on issues such as global climate change without hurting our lifestyles. The answer is no.

Nevertheless, she spoke about small changes such as using better light bulbs. It was a carefully calibrated answer. In fact, she mentioned that people should “not feel threatened” by changes. Of course they feel threatened, and justifiably so. She stated that the Vatican was carbon neutral. I have no idea if this is true, but praising the Vatican at a forum like this is smart.

A very intelligent question was asked on whether or not Hillary would commit troops to places like Darfur under a foreign command. The ansswer should have been “absolutely not.” I would include an expletive in my answer.

Hillary totally ducked the question, perhaps because the “global test” question hurt John Kerry in 2004. She did praise President Bush regarding the tsunami in Asia, especially since he tapped her husband. Hillary did correctly point out that America’s favorability went through the roof after the tsunami, but it was because of the generosity of ordinary Americans, not the government. She acknowledged that “the military can be helpful” in certain situations. How generous of her.

An absolutely idiotic question about whether God wanted her to be President was handled very brilliantly. She cited Abraham Lincoln, and spoke about what motivates her. On these types of questions, she appears very genuine.

Barack Obama then came out to a rousing ovation, and he shook Hillary’s hand as she exited the stage.

The first question to Obama dealt with his smugness, although it was phrased in a nicer way. He was asked why he referred to bitter people who turn to religion and guns.

He insisted that he did not mean to demean anybody. He also said people were misconstruing his words. By misconstruing I guess he means taking him literally.

When asked about Hillary referring to him as elitist, he said that this was an example of politics tearing people down.

On an unrelated note, liberal blowhard Bob Beckel had stated earlier in the evening that based on the way they were mistreated in society, black people could not be elitist.

When asked about God intervening in history, Obama properly made it clear that he did not understand God’s plan, but tried to live a good life.

An abortion softball was delivered to Obama, in the form of being asked if there was common ground. The loudspeakers then began to blare the Beatles singing, “Come Together, right now, over me.” Just kidding. Obama did handle the question well, but again, it was a softball. He did talk about adoption and other issues, but made it clear there was a chance the issue might not be resolved. In fact, when he said “adoption is an option,” Jesse Jackson must have been upset that he did not think of the adoption rhyme first.

He was then asked a tougher abortion question, that being whether or not life begins at conception.

He said that he had no idea. Given that this was a forum about beliefs, he could have stated his position.

When asked about euthanasia, he again ducked. However, his point that all Americans should have a living will was a valid and important point. I am amazed that I do not recall a candidate mentioning that before. He stated that terminally ill people should get medicine to “relieve their pain.” When Campell Brown tried to infer that relieving pain meant ending life, Obama would not acknowledge that.

A Southern Baptist Minister stated that an abstinence based and faith based program reduced AIDS in Africa, and wanted Obama’s views.

Obama did praise President Bush’s faith based initiatives with regards to trying to save lives. Obama offered various ideas in a comprehensive approach, but again would not address the abstinence program. At some point he would answer a question, but perhaps not on this night. One valid point he made that needs to be repeated by democrats is that there is a “human element to this problem.” He could have stopped at that point, but he specifically mentioned promiscuity. He could have spoken about drug users as well, and the fact that AIDS is rising again in the homosexual community, but based on the low standards democrats have set, his answer was courageous for criticizing anybody.

When asked about a comment he made about his daughter being “punished with a baby,” Obama deftly answered the question by pointing out his daughters were 9 and 6. He made it clear that if his daughter got pregnant at age 12 or 13, it would be a mistake, and that women at that age having babies is harmful for the mothers and children. It was an appropriate answer, and he plainly stated that “children screw up.”

A pointless question about God creating the world in 6 days was answered in a dignified manner.

Obama then did something bold, which is not his nature. He could have left the answer as it was, but instead decided to emphasize his belief in evolution, and that it was compatible with his Christian faith. The answer was fine, and again given surprising how cautious Obama normally is.

Obama was then asked how he reconciles both evolution and religious faith, as it relates to climate change and stem cell research.

He very smartly talked about how Genesis teaches us to be good stewards.

Obama was asked about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but the question was a complete softball. Rather than be asked about the controversies, Obama was asked how Pastor Wright brought him closer to God.

His answer was thoughtful, and poignant. He listed the positive things that his church was doing. Obama then tried to state that while Reverend Wright was his pastor, that was not the same as a spiritual adviser. While this is baloney, Obama stated that the controversial comments do not detract from the good works that the church does. This is wrong. If the KKK were to help cure AIDS, it would not change the fact that they are racists. Obama still has not figured this issue out.

Obama was asked how his exposure to Islam as a child shaped him. He responded by stating that when he lived in Indonesia as a child, he attended Catholic school. Additionally, Indonesia at the time was a secular and tolerant nation. Islam can be compatible with the modern world, and work with Judaism and Christianity to improve the world.

Obama was asked if he would commit to cutting poverty in America in half in 10 years. Obama stated that he would absolutely make that commitment. While I cannot imagine how he could do it, the fact that he believes he can is either naive or admirable. I will go with admirable since cynicism does not help anybody. He tied the issue into fixing America economically. One can disagree with Obama’s prescriptions, and I do, but he did articulate his goals well with regard to domestic initiatives ranging from health care to education. He also stated that he wanted to keep the office of faith based initiatives open. In an ironic moment, he emphasized the importance of humility, especially given his recent perceived pompousness.

Obama was then asked about how quickly we can surrender in the war on terror. The actual words of the questioner dealt with torture.

Not only did Obama state that he was against torture, but he also stated that he would not “farm out or subcontract torture.” That means we cannot hand a guy over to another country knowing they might deal with him in a harsher manner than we would.

The last question was the same softball asked earlier, about religion had too much power in American life today. Obama was very deft on this one.

He stated that many democrats were bad on religious issues. He then stated the republicans were guilty in the other direction. It was a way of being above politics, and he straddled the line successfully. He warned against self righteousness, and was lucky there were no mirrors around.

This was a tough one to call in terms of the winner. As I have said before, the debate premise itself was worthless.

Obama was bland. He offended nobody, but was less inspirational than he has been in the past.

Hillary had moments of brazen insincerity. She reminded me why she has so many people that dislike her with such a ferocity. Yet she had other moments of incredible sincerity, and during those moments was better than I had ever seen her.

Given that this was a forum for democrats, Hillary’s negative moments will be glossed over, while her positives will pleasantly surprise people, especially if she can keep it up. I suspect she cannot, and look for her to go on the attack in the Pennsylvania debate on the 16th.

Nevertheless, Obama was simply boring tonight. He has had many good nights, and this was not one of them. He did not do himself any harm, and will most likely be livelier on the 16th.

If anybody won this evening, it would be Hillary, albeit slightly. It was just a tad better for her than a draw.

eric

I am not sure if yesterday was some left wing ideological holiday, or if the inmates in the political asylum were all released onto the streets at once. Nevertheless, I was the victim of behavior that made San Francisco look like a city of functional people.

I have made it clear over and over that there are liberals in society that are normal human beings. Being liberal does not automatically make you hateful, or a wack job. If anything, my blog has been about fighting ideological bigotry. Yet in the last 24 hours, I have been on the receiving end of behavior that should make even liberals be embarrassed. I am a provocative person, but I know when lines of decency have been crossed.

The incident took place at work. For legal reasons, I have to speak in cryptic language. What I can say for certainty is that politics has no place in the workplace. Despite workplace rules set up by corrupt labor lawyers (redundant, I know) that want free speech for everybody except conservatives, individuals of all political stripes should restrain their beliefs when dealing with customers. I have no idea what the political views are of my auto mechanic, my doctor, or my dry cleaner. I only care that my car, my body, and my clothing are in better condition after visiting them than before.

What separates activists from normal people is that activists simply cannot understand that most people want to get through their day without being shouted at, preached to, or bombarded with leaflets. Maybe many of these people could afford clean shirts if they did not spend all their money on leaflets.

Anyway, anybody, even me, can generalize. Specific examples are now the public domain.

At work, I was having a telephone conversation with a woman whose job was to to mediate a dispute between a firm and a client. Mediation can be a vital tool in negotiations, whether it be business disagreements or divorce settlements. A mediator must be calm, cool, and levelheaded. They have to take parties that may be at each other’s throats, and keep the discussion rational.

This one mediator may or may not be a disgrace to her profession. I do not like to base an entire career on one incident, but the incident was pretty hairy.

I have spoken with her several times, and it is a mind numbing discussion. She spends the first 20 minutes reminding me of her credentials. I call this the “Harvard Syndrome.” There was an episode of “Frasier” where series lead Kelsey Grammar mentioned his Harvard background. His boss replied, “I find it obnoxious that you have to mention that you went to Harvard in every sentence.” It is like listening to Hillary Clinton brag about her “solutions,” and her 35 years of experience. General Colin Powell had 35 years of experience in the military, but he does not spend his life boring people about it. He does what dignified people do. He goes about his business. Professionals do not have to announce how professional they are. They are work horses, not show horses.

This woman kept mentioning her 16 1/2 years of experience, reminding me of a child that still celebrates their half birthday. She kept mentioning her success rate, which I had no way of corroborating at that moment. She is successful because she says so.

Nevertheless, without evidence to the contrary, I could just sleep through the 20 minutes where she tells me of her god like status. Maybe she does not realize how boring it is, but then again, my main criteria for judging somebody is whether or not they get the job done. As long as she was effective, the rest can be forgiven. This where all hades broke loose on the telephone.

She made recommendations to me. I disagreed with her proposed resolution. I was not attacking her personally. I am sure she put some effort into her work. Yet I was the customer, and I simply felt that she was asking for more than I was willing to give. I politely let her know that despite her efforts, the two parties were apart, and that negotiations most likely had broken down.

I was not aware how personal this mediator valued her success rate. She did her work, I did not like the results, and decided to reject the proposed offer. Mediation is not binding, and I thought I was engaging in my normal right to take an alternative approach.

The mediator then went ballistic on the telephone. She violated more than one rule of professionalism.

First of all, she began spewing profanity in a rapid clip. I was in shock. She threw out words that rhymed with spit, luck, and rap. This is not an acceptable way for a professional to behave, especially one that is a mediator! She made it clear we would regret not taking her advice, that if we ignored her we ran the risk of facing financial consequences worse than what she was proposing, and that I “needed to understand this, and make my boss understand this as well.”

I don’t “need” to understand such simple concepts as settling or rolling the dice. I understand the concept of risk vs reward. My analysis simply disagreed with hers in terms of the value of settling. Also, the idea that I need to “explain” the situation to my boss implies that he is an imbecile that has not thought of this. I guess he was too busy building a successful business to think about things such as the value of a dollar today versus two dollars tomorrow. I explained to her that my boss understood the situation, considered the advice, but decided to reject it. A professional can advise a client, but at the end of the day, the client is the boss.

After again trying to explain to the mediator that we understood the risks of refusing to settle, and that we were completely prepared to accept the consequences, the mediator went into a 7 to 10 minute profanity laced tirade. I held the phone away from my ear and contemplated various thoughts, ranging from whether or not this hysterical woman needed medication to why my parents did not set me up with a trust fund (Actually, for the sake of ethics, I was most likely contemplating my navel. My middle shirt button was open from a defect in the material. A necktie hides this.).

The mediator then completely went off the rails, stating, “You can’t take the ‘My way or the highway attitude.’ You can’t be like George W. Bush going into Iraq hell bent on war without considering the ramifications of cowboy diplomacy guns blazing. You have to work with people.”

I was stunned at this point. Not one aspect of this situation had anything to do with politics. This was a business dispute that was completely apolitical. Also, again, this was not the other side of the dispute. This was the mediator!

After literally waiting for her to stop speaking, I conducted myself in a professional manner. When I am not at work, I am perfectly comfortable taking verbal brickbats to the skulls of liberals. At work, I do not have that luxury. I waited for her to stop. Then I waited some more. Finally, I spoke.

“(name redacted), this is a very divided country. So before you start injecting your personal politics into this situation, in addition to your cursing at me, you should know that I am a rock ribbed supporter of President Bush. I see no reason to continue this conversation.”

She did try to apologize, but instead of leaving it at that, she then went back into her standard stump speech involving her credentials and why we should listen to her. I had to cut her off.

“I’ve heard what you had to say, quite clearly. I have made my decision. My firm will handle this as we see fit, and your left wing politics should not have been brought up. I am leaving for the day, there is nothing left to discuss, and I am off to drive home in my car containing my Bush-Cheney bumper sticker. Have a good day.”

Again, for the sake of ethics, I have no bumper stickers on my car. Women like this are the reason why. I have encountered enough violent “peace” activists to avoid considering taking such a risk.

Some people in this world will accuse me of cherry picking. They will say things like, “ok, I agree with you, this lady is nuts, but it is not fair to paint a broad brush.”

How many of these lunatics do I have to encounter before people on the far left realize that their rage is the norm, not an aberration?

How do I take these life forms and get them to become civilized human beings?

What do I have to do to get through a week without being exposed to the ugliness of those that let their ideological bigotry define them?

Those that want to say that both sides do it are flat out wrong. Those on the right behaving this way are an aberration, especially since labor laws ban conservatives from speaking to begin with.

At work, everybody should shut up. Receptionists should answer the switchboard. Salespeople should talk about the produce they are selling. The managers should focus on making sure things are running smoothly. Advisers should offer advice, but understand that the right to give advice does not imply or require consent.

In most organizations, whether they manufactures widgets or offer high tech widget consulting services, political activism ranges from not helpful to detrimental.

My next decision is to decide whether to let this matter go or file a formal professional complaint.

Either way, this woman might wish to rethink her approach. Even old dogs can learn new tricks. Perhaps some additional training would be appropriate. I will resist the urge to make a remark about a female dog, even though what she said to me was much worse.

eric